Paragraphs 14-16 of the complaint are relevant. She believed (and was told by her lawyer) that AMI would also promote her with monthly columns, covers, etc. In addition to the money, she was also supposed to be getting the benefit of that publicity. But the contract didn't obligate AMI to do that.
Those are the allegations, which are all we have at this point. If AMI seeks to dismiss the complaint quickly, those allegations are accepted as true as a matter of law. If she records of her correspondence with Davidson ("her lawyer") in which she says that she'll only sign if the agreement guarantees her that publicity, and Davidson lies to her and says that the agreement does that, the agreement should be toast for fraud, unconscionability, or because there was no meeting of the minds (pick your poison at that point).
She isn't a victim because she slept with Trump. She is a victim because, if the allegations are true, she got royally screwed, in large part by her own attorney.