The elaboration of sign language recognition legislation is a rather recent event in the field of language policy. So far sole few authors have recorded signing communities’ aspirations for recognition legislation, how they work with their governments to obtain legislation which most reflects these goals, and whether and why outcomes are successful. Indeed, from signing communities’ perspective it seems most current legislation leaves much to be desired. One reason for this is the absence of language acquisition rights and the right to access services directly in sign language. This article, via appealing to a critical language policy framework and using principles of the ethnography of language policy, will elucidate this by critically exploring the ambitions and motives, as voiced by the Finnish Association of the Deaf, for a Sign Language Act in Finland. It also compares the situation of signers in Finland with that of the Sámi, the other minority group mentioned in the constitution with designated language legislation. The findings indicate that the Act is innovative and internationally unique in different aspects but does not reflect FAD’s most important pursuits, and is very different from the Sámi Language Act. An examination of the reasons behind this difference, which makes Finland’s sign languages both fostered and imperiled, can make significant contributions to the field of sign language policy but also to the broader (critical) language policy field.